So many words and yet you still have not developed any reason to think your claim is true in any possible world.

"Some more grasping at straws and more evidence that you're being far more generous if it comes to how you hold on tight to your own views to such an extent that it makes you unable to adopt the views of others, be it even just as a hypothetical."

A hypothetical can be conceived of, evaluated, and still judged as false.

"Doesn't have to be a given it just has to be hypothetically possible and if it hasn't been falsified or if it is unfalsifiable it's logically possible. Anything else again is purely distraction."

We already went over this. Logical possibility does not imply something is metaphysically possible. You have to understand the basics before you dive into something you don't understand and look foolish.

"It doesn't have to be actually possible."

If it's not metaphysically possible, then there is no possible world where objective purpose exists on naturalism.

"I think your God in actuality is (at least very close to if not completely) impossible but theism still allows for objective meaning based on their statement that a personal God exists and gives people objective meaning. Logical possibility is all that matters for this to hold truth hold truth value."

I was already explicit about this too. Theists don't defend the idea that because God allowing for objective meaning is logically possible, it's possible in some world. They would go on to defend why it's possible in some world and give an account on how that works. If an atheist were to refute this defense, we would be left with no reason to think what is logically possible is actual. That's how this works.

"I could potentially reject objective meaning under naturalism in the same manner that I reject your God belief and the supernatural but this does not change that naturalism is not antithetical toward objective meaning (as long as it's natural)"

If you reject it, then you supposedly have a reason why you reject it (i.e. you find it to be untenable). This would mean you find it to be incompatible with reality and therefore at least not metaphysically possible. Since you're a self-proclaimed agnostic about objective purpose on naturalism, you don't reject it, but you neither accept it. I am not agnostic about the matter- I do reject it for reasons I have expressed. An argument in defense of objective purpose existing on naturalism not forthcoming, I have no reason to believe it's metaphysically possible.

This next example is where your thinking really exposes itself:

"Is Harry Potter real?"

If by real, we mean actually attains in this world, then no, agreed.

"Can he then in actuality have fought a dragon and won? Probably not as again he's imaginary."

He in actuality does not exist, so again, I agree- no.

"Is there any logical contradiction in the statement that Harry Potter fought a dragon and won? No!"

So far so good.

"Then the Harry Potter Universe allows for wizards to fight dragons and win."

No, not on that basis at all! This is where you go wrong every time. While there's nothing inherent to the statement that is self-contradictory, there's no defense given for why we should think such a thing is a coherent description of a possible world. For example, is magic in contradiction with the natural laws of that world? Are such things in the HP universe in contradiction to one another? Now- maybe it is a metaphysically possible world and a description of that world wouldn't contradict itself (I think it's likely the case), but that can't just be assumed. It must be explained and developed why we should think so, because it's not obvious.

"You already admitted that there's no logical contradiction so even if it was complete fictional hogwash and impossible in any world apart from the imaginary world inside our heads (which it could be) that still wouldn't save you (as long as you can't falsify it)."

You're displaying your lack of understanding in full fledge. If it's not possible in any world, then there's no description of any world where that statement is true, including this world. That just is what it means to refute the possibility of objective purpose on naturalism to be real or actual.

"I'm not locked into naturalism so I can look at other people's views and see whether they are contradictory."

Yes, like you'd be able to look at the monism you appealed to and see that it is contradictory to naturalism. Not very helpful to your argument.

"Locked into your self-imposed theistic prison you can do nothing but accept (even as hypothetical) only the views which align with theism."

I can't imagine why you think that, since the whole point of my post is to evaluate naturalism (something I don't believe, yet regard as metaphysically possible) and then make considerations about the implications of that worldview. You're just making yourself look silly at this point flinging about accusations.

"So did I, I gave and alluded to several even."

Linking other people's arguments is not making an argument nor is it showing anything. I already said I'd be interested to read such things, but I deny that you've made, shown, or defended any claim of value in this conversation regarding objective purpose on naturalism. You've only given me reason to think you are an amateur at this. Especially given your reaction to my comments; only people who are knocked off-balance get mad like you are now.

"No, YOU are attacking the veracity of your own theism if you're using arguments against naturalistic propositions which would be just as relevant if it comes to your own God belief."

Oh look, a "no u!" in the wild lol. Anyway, the theist actually defends their worldview by attempting to develop arguments, which you have still failed to do. It's probably for the better at this rate too. Leave it to the people you linked instead.